Here's a fact: half of all employees test better than the other half. My question is, which half do you have?
Testing job applicants and employees is a frequent topic in my CEO and HR workshops. Because most companies don't do appropriate testing, those that do enjoy a significant advantage.
Years ago, as I was leaving my litigation practice, a legal secretary (we'll call her Sue) came into my office wanting to sue her former firm. She had worked 15 years as a legal secretary for one partner, then accepted a last-minute hire with another attorney after a pleasant lunch meeting.
Almost immediately the new attorney expressed disappointment with her productivity. After three months he fired her without severance, leaving Sue — a single mom with two children — without a job.
I asked whether performance benchmarks had been discussed at the hiring meeting. They had not. Consider this example: a legal secretary types about half of the day, and half of secretaries type above the median while half type below it.
When I asked Sue how fast she typed, she said about 80 words per minute, a number she knew from testing herself years earlier. Her previous secretary had tested at roughly 100 words per minute. The moral: the woman in my office was a failure on the first day of her employment and nobody knew about it.
This raises a broader question: how many people walk into your company a poor fit on day one and no one notices? It makes no difference who you're hiring — without testing, you're still guessing about essential skills.
Deming and Drucker both argued that most people want to do a good job, and when they can't it is often due to system failures rather than lack of motivation. I saw this in a law firm I consulted with that had turnover problems during a growth period.
We asked whether all the legal secretaries had been tested. They had not, so we tested them on typing and on the substantive and procedural knowledge their jobs required.
That testing revealed a hidden management problem: in many firms attorneys receive no formal management training and secretaries report to multiple managers. An 80 wpm typist working for a strong manager can look better than a 100 wpm typist working for a weak manager, even though the underlying skills differ.
You can and should test for every essential skillset. For example, when helping a real estate investment firm hire a CFO, we tested three areas: GAAP accounting knowledge, QuickBooks, and Excel proficiency because they used Excel for deal modeling.
We used standardized tests that cost between $17 and $30 each. Because the company wanted a CFO in the top tiers, candidates had to score highly in all three areas, and it took months to find the right person.
Testing discipline like that is what separates average hiring from exceptional hiring. For some industries, consider also whether you need role-specific coverage or guidance such as Auditory-Verbal Therapy, Implants, and Testing — Insurance Coverage when evaluating and protecting staff.
For executive searches and senior-level hiring, testing and vetting are especially important; see Executive Head Hunters Insurance for more context on executive-level placements and related considerations.
I recommend using reputable testing vendors rather than informal self-reports. A validated test helps you hire better and clarifies what training will improve performance.
Testing is also useful when hiring consultants or contractors. For example, when we built HR That Works on a SharePoint platform, we verified the project manager's SharePoint skills with a test and confirmed he scored very high, which justified our confidence in his abilities.
Finally, skill testing is separate from character assessment. Personality measures are different from skills tests, and while you can't "fail" a personality test, you should watch for character or personality issues that make a candidate a poor cultural fit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What types of skills should I test for when hiring?
Test for the specific, job-critical skills the role requires, such as typing speed for administrative roles or Excel and accounting knowledge for finance positions.
Are standardized tests expensive to use for hiring?
No, many validated skill tests cost between about $17 and $30 per candidate, making them affordable compared with hiring mistakes.
Can testing replace interviews?
No, testing complements interviews by objectively measuring skills while interviews assess fit, communication, and judgment.
Should I test current employees or only applicants?
Test both applicants and existing employees to identify training needs and ensure consistent skill levels across your team.